The opinions expressed in The Lawrentian are those of the students, faculty and community members who wrote them. The Lawrentian does not endorse any opinions piece except for the staff editorial, which represents a majority of the editorial board. The Lawrentian welcomes everyone to submit their own opinions. For the full editorial policy and parameters for submitting articles, please refer to the About section.
Every Lawrentian has survived First Year Studies, which means there are a lot of people with strong opinions about it. I’m sure I’m not the only one who cheered when “Honeybee Democracy” was removed from the curriculum, and no matter where we come from or what we’re interested in studying, Plato’s “Republic” brings out the most surprising opinions in everyone. But amidst all the complaints about this polarizing course, one area of discussion often gets neglected in student-led conversations: what’s something that should be added to the curriculum in future years?
As a government major and amateur journalist, one of the most useful skills I’ve had to practice is analyzing sources for validity and bias. In fact, I think all Lawrentians would benefit from a text that emphasizes media literacy. The media is an invaluable resource that keeps us informed about events happening on the other side of the world, but it is also vulnerable to bias and manipulation, and many people don’t know how to identify propaganda that’s woven into mainstream media narratives. At its best, the news is a platform for revealing truth; at its worst, it is a vehicle for concealing it.
To understand global politics in the news requires a basic understanding of how buzzwords can be manipulated to create misleading reports. Media outlets frequently rely on underlying connotations rather than explicit statements to covertly shape the narrative without being accused of taking sides. A quick comparison of U.S. news articles covering the violence in Ukraine and Palestine demonstrates the dangerous power that words have over the public perception of events and history.
Furthermore, many of these buzzwords are used in the media for shock value in ways that are inconsistent with their definitions in the international political sphere. For example, the field of international politics typically defines “terrorism” as acts of violence committed by non-state actors with the goal of making an explicit political statement, but the media often uses the term to describe gratuitous violence in general. Similarly, the United Nations has specific legal criteria for defining war crimes and war criminals, but news outlets often apply these terms to any acts of violence committed by the perceived enemy. Identifying these discrepancies in language is essential to understanding the truth of global politics.
It’s hard to find texts that objectively address media bias because all published works are, by definition, media. Therefore, even as we try to find resources to facilitate these conversations, we need to examine these works with a critical eye. However, two books I’ve read recently that raise good questions for discussions about media bias are “Manufacturing Consent” by Edward S. Herman and Noah Chomsky and “Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism” by Safiya Umoja Noble.
Although a central goal of First Year Studies is to encourage critical reading and discussion of intellectually stimulating content, it’s also a great opportunity to incorporate skills that are helpful outside of academia. Media literacy is not just a great skill for academic research; it’s essential to understanding the world around us and developing informed perspectives on the politics that shape our experiences. Therefore, I advise Lawrence to add texts on media literacy to the First Year Studies curriculum.